Why Did John Use Logos

John1944, I have shown that there is a difference in the two occurrences of 'theos' at John 1:1. Leading to the conclusion by many Bible scholars (not just JW's) that the Word is not the God he is "with".

You claim that this is "incorrect", but are unable to explain why this is "incorrect". So how do you know I am "incorrect"? Rather than ignorantly ordering people off CN because you don't like what people say, try explaining yourself first!

If you cannot explain why John 1:1 says what it says, why do you blindly toe the trinitarian party line?

You and MarkEaton sound like the Pharisees of Jesus and Pauls day who tried to shut them up because they taught the truth!

David, I am wondering what your purpose is for being here on these blogs. Are you trying to convince us of something? Is there something about us that you would like to change? Do you not like us the way we are? Please let us know what your goal is as far as we are concerned.

The Zondervan! The beginners guide to Greek for Trinitarians!? MarkEaton probably has is the one edited by the rabid trinitarians Bill & Bob Mounce. Talk about the blind leading the blind!

I'm not attacking people. I'm attacking the pagan trinity. A Satanic pagan dogma used to mystify and confuse the personality of Almighty God. A pagan dogma forced upon by Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine.

Even the simplified Zondervan interlinear shows no definite article in the 2nd occurrence of 'theos' at Jo. 1:1. To suggest there is no difference between the two predicates is contemptuous. Indicative of the fact that MarkEaton's lust for paganism exceeds any regard for the word of God!

Ephesians 3:9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Revelation 4:11Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:Jesus cannot have created himself. So he is not a created being.

David, you are welcome to believe what you believe. You think I'm mistaken, and that's okay with me. God loves us both and will save us both. We are probably both wrong about a lot of things. But God loves us just the same.

So in other words John1944, you do not know. You cannot explain why these scholars in your view are "incorrect" in their understanding of John 1:1.

Thus, your assertion is based purely on an emotional attachment to a doctrine, and not what the Bible teaches. Your love of the trinity doctrine exceeds love of what the Bible really teaches at places such as Jo.1:1.

Can the 'logos' be 'the God' he is with? Context and Greek grammar at Jo.1:1 say, no he is not.

Yes those who see the Son also see the Father. Why? Because Jesus is a reflection of his Father- Jehovah [YHWH]- Heb.1:3.

Recall what John went on to say, 'No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son'.- Jo.1:18.

I am not a Bible scholar, David. Jesus said that those who have seen Him have seen the Father. If He is not God, then neither is the Father. God himself became man to form an intimacy with us and show His love to us. This I believe. You may believe it, or not. It's up to you. God will save you in the end. I'm sure of it. God bless you.

Perhaps John1944 you can explain how and why Bible scholars such as Benjamin Wilson, Smith & Goodspeed, and Westcott & Hort have got John 1:1 so badly wrong in your eyes? How can you be so sure they are "incorrect"?

Please tell me where these scholars and JW's have got it wrong regarding John 1:1?

It is interesting that only Jehovah's Witnesses read John 1:1 the way they do. It's no use trying to argue with them. Their minds are made up. Let's just keep them in our prayers. God loves them just as he loves us.

If God Wills something to happen, can it fail to happen?---john1944 on 12/22/16

No

2Chr 20:6 . . . so that none is able to withstand thee? Job 9:12 . . . who can hinder him?Job 23:13 . . . who can turn him?Is 46:11 . . . I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass, I have purposed it, I will also do it. Dan 4:35 . . . none can stay his hand

Note: There are two occurrences of theos in Jo.1:1. Only one has the definite article "ho" attached to it. This is significant because it means the 'logos' is not the God it is "with".

Therefore, "in the beginning" (Ge.1:26), Elohim was not talking to another God as propounded by polytheist trinitarian MarkEaton. The Word was WITH [or 'toward'] God in the beginning. Or as MarkEaton says "face to face with the Father".

You either will not or cannot tell us. Either way, all that is left for you is try to persuade others that our beliefs are untrue. Which you can only do with fancy footwork, smoke and mirrors, and flat out mistranslations.

Come on David, explain to us how only 144,000 will be saved and how you are one of the 144,000?

How about explaining that Jesus was really Michael the Arch Angel?

How about explaining how your doctrine has been around since the Apostles but your society only started in 1879?

Explain to us how Jesus was not crucified on a cross but on a torture stake?

In A Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith says: 'The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength'.

In fact, the Greek language does not have a "plural of majesty". So, at Genesis 1:1 the translators of the Septuagint [LXX] used 'ho theos' (God, singular) as the equivalent of 'Elohim'. At Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular 'ho theos' is similarly used.

Thus, Bible scholars and Jesus himself do not consider 'Elohim' to indicate a trinity.

"I am sad for you." Don't be Mark, the only life that I am concerned with is a life of knowing the Father as the one true God, and Jesus, the Christ, whom He has sent to represent Him. The understanding that I desire is the understanding that comes through fellowship with the Father and His Son. Who has given me an understanding via His Spirit, to know Him who is true. To know that I am in Him, and in His Son, the Word of life. This is the true God, and eternal life, which is true life, is in His Son.

I am sad for you. You miss out on understanding the world around us through the Trinity.

The love expressed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in communion is so wonderful, that God planned to create us and include us in their life.

Their life is in all things now. Look at music, art, literature. All these come from God. Nothing is left out. Their passion for their creation has been poured out on all flesh and we are seeing the benefits.

In Hebrew, the word 'elohah' (god) has two plural forms, namely, 'elohim' (gods) and 'eloheh' (gods of). Is this proof of the trinity? No it is not!

The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures says of 'elohim': "It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute."

Thus 'elohim' conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a godhead.

But 'elohim' means, not 'persons', but gods. So those like MarkEaton who argue 'elohim' implies a trinity make themselves polytheists, worshipers of more than one God. Why? Because it would mean that there were three Gods in the Trinity.

One of the reasons that I believe John used Logos. Was that the Philosopher Plato used logos as the center of all. Kinda of like it was the first mover. So those who read who were Greeks would see a word that would remind them of the prime cause.

I cannot prove this. It is just a thought since that is the way Plato uses the word.

I have not found a reason to disbelieve the Trinity. I have found many who have different variations on the meaning of the word. There is a little youtube video called Extra History who has a section on Early Church history. I found it very informative.

However, within is listed among the definitions of pros in Strong's concordance ---Josef on 12/20/16

Please show me the BCV where pros is translated "within" in the New Testament. I am confident there is no such verse.

As I see it, translating pros as "within" matches your theology. It the Word is "within" the Father, the Word becomes just another attribute of the Father, which you have said is the single-being God. I see your faith as Biblical Unitarian, that the only God is Our Father, and that Trinity is not a biblical doctrine.

The name Jesus by definition is Jehovah saved. Jesus is the Word, defined as something said, which includes thought and reason, made flesh. Therefore, Jesus, the person, did not exist before He was born of Mary. Mat 1:21>Luk 1:31 And once born, He represented the Father's arm, as in His wisdom power and strength. Mat 1:23> Psa 46:7>Isa 12:2>Isa 59:16>Isa 52:10 That is my belief, however if you can show that to be incorrect, biblically, I will stand corrected. In Him "All the fullness of the Deity dwells" that deity is the Divine nature of the Supreme being, Col 2:9>Rom 1:20 Who is Spirit. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. 2 Co. 5:19

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (face to face with the Father), and the Word was God.

The Greek word pros used as "with" in the above verse is used in the entirety of NT Scripture as "unto, with, for, against, among, at" with a definition as "a strengthened form of pro, a preposition of direction, forward to, i.e. toward"

"And God said" represents a Divine utterance that expressed His thought, desire, and intent, and reflects Him. Father's word was brought forth for creation, expression, disclosure, and revelation. Sent forth for truth, salvation, and healing. Made flesh in the person of Jesus, as the temple of His Spirit that He might dwell among us. Why? For the shedding of blood, and the suffering of death, that He might redeem us. Whom He also raised from the dead justifying us, and delivering us from His wrath to come.

It is His divine, uttered expression of the Himself.---Josef on 11/28/16

Jesus is the Word, and Jesus is the image of the invisible God. All things were created thru Jesus and all things consist in Him.

All the fullness of the Deity dwells in Jesus.

Jesus is not the Father, and the Father is not Jesus. But they are one in relationship, being, and purpose.

Col 1:19-20 " For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross"

Because the Word expresses the Father's mental disposition and thought process. It is His divine, uttered expression of the Himself. The word represents how He thinks, and therefore represents Him. The Word discloses the I Am, of I Am that I Am. For as He declares Himself to be, so He becomes. He declares Himself to be creator, and His Word creates, He declares Himself to be savior, and His Word saves, He declares Himself to be healer, and His Word heals, He declare Him to be provider, and by His Word he provides, etc,etc,etc.

The Word expresses the Father's mental disposition and thought process. It is His divine, uttered expression of the Himself. The word represents how He thinks, and therefore represents Him. The Word discloses the I Am, of I Am that I Am. For as He declares Himself to be, so He becomes. He declares Himself to be creator, and His Word creates, He declares Himself to be savior, and His Word saves, He declares Himself to be healer, and His Word heals, He declare Him to be provider, and by His Word He provides, etc,etc,etc.

Corrections to previous posts. These lines should read "I Am that which I [choose] to be. He [chose] to experience life as a man.":0) The following line would have been better understood as "The spoken word is His Son, in that it is the 'off spring' of Himself, in the sense of a 'product' [as that produced and brought forth solely of Himself], and utilized as the catalyst for the effectual operation of His faith...""How can inspiration be blasphemed?" By refusing it, or attributing the Father's power and inspiration to anything or anyone other than Himself. Having the semblance of piety, but dening the power that enables that piety, thus insulting the Spirit of grace. Mat. 2:31>2Ti 3:5>Heb 10:26-29

I believe the reason John used the word "Logos" is because:2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:2Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I also believe that the writers of the new testament were just as the writers of the old:2Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I have read that some commentators think John used Logos because of the Greek Philosophy on the word as used by the Stoics.

WikipediaIn Stoic philosophy, which began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, the logos was the active reason pervading and animating the universe. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the seminal logos, ("logos spermatikos") or the law of generation in the universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter.

So to Gentiles and Greeks speakers it would call forth images that JESUS was creator and GOD.

Trav, you are all talk, and a wimp. You have debated many issues, ardently, for years...

Indeed you post much Scripture...---Warwick on 12/23/14

Issues, perhaps not scriptural Truths. This wimp's posted scripture gave you bloody blog lips (all four), ate all your blog dogs and sends you running yipping at me over your shoulder... wimp. Ha. From an effem like you boasting of trolling nude on the beach, on a Christian blog site. My left hand deals with imposters. My right you don't rate.Some more irrelevant scripture for you: Mat 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.(I do and will speak/post it...because you fearfully cannot.)

aka, 2Pet.2.4. uses the word Tarterus "Putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment"(hell in KJV) Footnote NIV ,Tarterus was the term used by the Greeks to designate the place where the most wicked spirits were sent to be punished. Strong's Concordance says phulake ..."prison" What's your point?

Cliff,These verses have been debated over centuries. One group wants to use the greek words with loose English construct, and the result is always the same. E.g., as I said before and you ignored, tarterus [sic] is not the word used. phylake is, which has different connotations. So, is your argument based on fact or what someone else told you SSecondly if you want to return to the previous discussion, you need to pay attention to my words too. The discussion wasn't about a resurrection message to the spirits. It was if a spirit lives after the body dies.

now you can see why i call it the Council of Shifting Sand.Let me know if this is a dialogue between us or just a platform where you can just speak your opinion without true witness.

aka, So back to the earlier discussion , daimnion (evil spirits) are no longer angels but they are still "spirits" (spirit beings) , these are the "spirits in prison (tarterus) that Jesus preached to in Noah's day (Peter's words) Not a salvation message , but condemnation ! Seems logical to me !

Samuel...thanks. I do know those things. Cliff and I have been in the Council of the Shifting Sands for quite a while now. There is no use to discuss the bible without some access to at least greek amd hebrew words, which we all have if we are using the computer.

Actually pneuma Merriam WebstersDefinition of PNEUMAsoul, spirit Strongs 4151I can find no place it is translated as angel.

Strongsaggelos: an angel, messengerPart of Speech: Noun, MasculineDefinition: a messenger, generally a (supernatural) messenger from God, an angel, conveying news or behests from God to men.HELPS Word-studies

"Wrong! God's spoken word would be a creation.":o) Would it?Only if, one believes that a thought, which the word expresses,and the breath that carries that expression forth, are also creations. Do You? Personally, I know that thought originated with the Father. We are made in Father's image. As inspired of Him, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he." Father identifies Himself as I Am, that I Am." Given to me to understand as I Am that which I chose to be. He choose to experience life as a man. Which He did vicariously through His Son. Who was 'Made" tangible to man in the person of Jesus, the fulness of Deity, bodily..

Cliff, Jesus says the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed, and that anyone who does so "will not be forgiven" Luke 12:10.

Blasphemy in Biblical context "involves the actual pronunciation of the name of God along with an attitude of disrespect." Holman Bible Dictionary p. 222. Therefore The Holy Spirit is God's name, not the description of an inanimate force. Can electricity (an inanimate force) be blasphemed? Also can any human or angel be blasphemed?

Likewise can the inanimate examples of spirit (not Spirit) you gave be blasphemed?

aka, We both know that "spirit" has many definitions, The "spirit of Christmas" for one..or spirit of '76 A horse can be "high spirited" Angels are "spirit beings" invisible and intangible This season sees much drinking of "spirits" from a bottle !.

"So His spoken word is also His Son?The spoken word is His Son, in that it is the 'off spring' of Himself, in the sense of a product He utilized as the catalyst for the effectual operation of His faith to produce, through His Spirit, a desired outcome or result.

"Where does Holy Spirit fit into this ?"The Holy Spirit is the inspiration and insight provided through His Word, that has been sat apart for the enlightenment of man, and "emphasizes His personality, character, work and power [in man], as an influence which fills and governs the 'soul' (as the consciousness) of any one," which of course includes ones "appetite, mind, desire, emotion, and passion".

OK, So we're talking about creation beginning and Logos (word). Evangelicals believe that God "spoke" things into existence! Let there be "light", "Water" etc...words. His "word" created them, Then His word is given personality, "Took on flesh and dwelt among us " So His spoken word is also His Son ? Where does Holy Spirit fit into this ?

John opens his epistle with "In the beginning" God is from everlasting to everlasting , hence No beginning. If Jesus is just another form of God , then He also had no beginning. What "beginning" is John talking about here?

aka, It's not that long ago that epileptics and schizophrenics etc. were thought to be demon possessed ! Early in New England it only took the testimony of two witnesses to condemn a woman of witchcraft then she was promptly hanged or drowned ! This is ,after all 2014!

Logos is defined as a statement or expression. So John 1:1 we have God the Father express himself which we call the Son. And that the Son is with or equal to God the Father and part of God. It is through this expression that everything was created Gen 1:1. verse 14 this expression took on flesh to become Jesus the Son of God so that we can know him (v18)